| The UN, Globalisation and the Battle for the Airwaves | 1 comment |
 13 Aug 2003 @ 21:14, by Raymond PowersThe UN, Globalisation and the Battle for the Airwaves by Simon Aronowitz simon at thoughtcrimenews dot com 12th August 2003 Many people are doubtful of the credibility of alternative news. Some say "You can't believe everything you read on the internet". Well what you are about to read you will not be able to compare with the mainstream corporate news, because they are not covering it. A week ago I received an email which appeared to be one big spoof. It was headed with the following comment: "THIS IS A GREAT STORY!! A UN ORGINAZTION VILOATING THE DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO TAKE THE PROPERTY OF RADIO FOR PEACE INTERNATIONAL THAT BROADCASTS THE UN NEWS. THIS IS NOT JOKE." The rest of the email was a press release explaining how Radio For Peace International (RFPI), broadcasting from the University for Peace (UP) in Costa Rica was facing eviction from its own premises whilst armed guards maintained a very visible presence. I had not paid too much attention to the content of the email. After all, it was a joke, right? "UN denies us our human rights" was the spin so obviously it wasn't to be taken seriously. But to satisfy my curiosity, I dug into the story and found that not only was it true, but was probably the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In an interview with Jean Parker, a member of the Board of Directors for RFPI, it emerged that perhaps the main reason that RFPI was facing eviction was because its programming was at odds with the direction that the new administration wished to go with the University, a UN-mandated organisation. RFPI was established on the University for Peace's campus in the 1980's. Since its inception the station has worked well with successive administrations of the University, broadcasting UP and UN programming. However since billionaire mover and shaker Maurice Strong took over the Presidency of the University Council, it was decided that the relationship between UP and RFPI "should be terminated". This decision was made following informal discussions between the Rector of UP and RFPI. Parker stated that "the new administration headed by Maurice Strong seems to be very oriented to the corporate sector as opposed to the NGO sector. Many of the Council members who were formerly on the Council of the University have been replaced by business people, not NGO or public sector people." She further alleged that Council members were unaware of decisions taken in their name. It appears that the content of RFPI's broadcasts are a key reason for UP to sever relations as Parker explained: "Radio for Peace is broadcasting programmes that are questioning and criticising things like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other aspects of so-called `free-trade' - free for some people and costly for most." Only as I sat down to write this article was I provided with a comment from the University for Peace via the UN office in London. To the untrained eye it might appear to be a litany of transgressions on the part of RFPI. Having understood who the players are in the affair and where the battle-lines have been drawn, it reads more like another one of Tony Blair's `dodgy dossiers'. Central to this issue is the ideology of people like Maurice Strong, a billionaire with oddly uncharacteristic involvement in the apparent future welfare of the planet. The UP statement mentions one of the primary audiences of RFPI is north America. Some, including the author, would argue that radio broadcasts into the USA promoting ideas of peace and freedom should be encouraged, not stamped out. As the world's self appointed beacon of democracy, the US would gain more kudos by publicly supporting the station. The fact that the station is instead facing a possible crushing under the foot of global interests which see the broadcasts as "not appropriate to the new programme of the University" must prompt the question "What do the UN and the University for Peace stand for then?" In any case, the north American audience issue is a red herring since by broadcasting from Costa Rica the station would reach central and southern America too, and those regions equally would benefit from such radio programming devoid of corporate influence. That even according to the University's own statement they seek to shut down the broadcasts to north America is indicative of the whole situation. RFPI would cut a fresh valley though the output of the likes of ClearChannel and the other corporate behemoths that control mainstream news output and who dominate their coverage of globalisation and economic development issues with a `pro-business' agenda. The battle to save RFPI is symbolic of the struggle that many feel they are facing to have their views heard in the face of growing corporate influence around the world. |